On these three things hangs my testimony

You will hear this formula every week in Mormon services. There is often a variation on #3, viz.:

3a. I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

3b. I know that the Book of Mormon is true.

3c. I know that Thomas S. Monson is God’s prophet on the earth today.

For Mormons, these beliefs, often characterised as “knowledge,” represent the heart of what it means to be a believing Mormon.

My beliefs are similar, but more specific, as I imagine they are for most Mormons were they to unpack what they mean when they “bear testimony.” It is worth exploring, I think.

1. There is a benevolent God.

It is not hard for me to believe in an all-powerful Creator, Professor Hawking’s recent statements notwithstanding. But faced with the cold suffering that seems to characterise much of sentient existence, it is not enough for me to believe in Creation per se — after all, an omnipotent demon could be a Creator — but in a Creation that ultimately serves the human good. God lives, but more importantly, he loves me.

2. The condescension of God saves me.

Again, belief in Jesus as an abstract only invigorates me so much. As I get older, I am coming to terms with my essentially sinful nature and happily see grace as a gift rather than a reward, one that I desperately need. I am not looking for a way to excuse my sins, but now find repentance to be a blessing and not an embarrassing by-product of lamentable imperfection (I am, after all, a member of the Believing Christ generation of Mormonism). That the life and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth — God, Son — somehow puts my life in balance is for me an essential belief.

(2b. I also believe that the grand key of Christianity is to see other people as if they were God, treat them accordingly, and thus change our natural spite and greed into love. Love, exemplified in Jesus, saves us in the end, if you’ll forgive what sounds a little trite. It’s not. It’s also the point of consecration, I think; see below.)

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the vehicle through which I can make saving covenants with God.

We say “the Church is true,” but I do not know what that means. I don’t wish to belittle that expression, but would simply suggest that it means what I have expressed it to mean: that the Mormon Church is “true” in the sense that it offers what it claims to offer. I do not think it is “true” solely because Gospel Principles says the right things about God, and it is not personally fruitful for me to anchor that truth in Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon, or President Monson alone. Please don’t misunderstand me. “Joseph Smith was a prophet” is, for example, something I certainly hold to be “true,” but it is true because the Restoration (symbols of which include the Prophet, the Book of Mormon, and the continuing keys of presidency) offers the means to change lives, through Christ. Thus, Fannie Alger, pre-Columbine horses, Hoffman forgeries, or the status of other religions in God’s eyes become less important than the fact that the church, particularly the temple, binds me to Christ, who binds me to God (see #2). If that is true then happy are we.

Preach It:

Related

Comments

Excellent post! I have also been trying to be more specific when I bear testimony. For example, instead of saying “I know the Church is true”, I try to say something like “The priesthood has been restored in our time which means that we can know that the saving ordinances we perform in the Church are effective and binding in heaven as they are on earth” or something else that is similarly specific (as moved by the Spirit, i.e. this isn’t about replacing one rote sentence with another) because it is more meaningful, both for me and for those with whom I am discussing the issue. Saying “I know the Church is true” can actually be somewhat meaningless, especially if speaking to those who do not belong to the Church. (Context really matters here.) It is a form of shorthand that is readily understandable to a Mormon audience, as you note with your point 3 above, but by the same token it is therefore “insider speak” that can actually confuse and even alienate listeners who have not accumulated the years of Mormon living required to understand the shorthand that we use.

Again, great thoughts — thank you for this post.

I’ve also been trying to simplify my testimony and really consciously tailor it to context rather than go the easy route and repeat a whole list every time. This goes hand in hand with an effort I am making to make every talk or testimony I give (or lesson I teach) fundamentally Christ-centered. Last Saturday I was asked to speak at a man’s baptism in our ward. So I focused on Christ in the talk about baptism but then closed with my testimony. It is sometimes hard to make it more thoughtful — the temptation is always there once the talk is concluded to sort of shut down the mental faculties and just default to the standard list and sit down. But this time I said “I believe in Jesus Christ. I know that he is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.” Given the context — a talk about baptism in which someone is making the decision to become a disciple of Jesus Christ and to show that through the ritual of baptism — I decided that I should simply end it there rather than going on through the normal checklist (BoM, Joseph Smith, Church is true, Pres. Monson a living prophet today). A very simple, Christ-centered testimony.

The effort I have been making to do this (over the last three years or so) has made speaking in church or teaching classes or accompanying the missionaries to teach investigators more enjoyable and it forces me to think more about what I am saying in order to be able to tailor my testimony to the context and get it right.

All cognitive and intellectual understandings are important to ‘collect’ in our ‘library’ of KNOWING. Using our brains is a most rewarding experience and a pursuit that dominates my life, certainly. What made all the difference in my normal everyday-time life, however, was the time period where I began to understand the role that my spirit had in my existence. I had studied, prayed about and applied the principles of the restored church as a young adult after searching for MORE answers and that ‘ring’ of truth in my brain when I heard doctrine. Immediately after asking God if it was true, and beginning to practice how to pray and get answers, applying all my new found knowledge..the heavens opened and I had many forms of answers and direct ‘proof’ exchanges with the other side of the veil. Also included in this were opposition / dark side manifestations.
I handeled them by reading what to do, having great faith, asking God for help, and just believing….maturely, kept growing, receiving, learning, but most importantly, gaining the kind of testimony that had collected very clear experience and confirmations that ALL made sense, followed the laws set forth in the scriptures and revealed instructions from older members, well schooled in spiritual education. It was a combination of activity, study, practice, personal revelations, visions, SERVICE, i.e. a true combination of all parts of my being that made up my testimony of truth. I am thankful that I learned early to “lean not on my own understanding” at the first ‘glance’, but to “try the spirits” and COMPARE the FRUIT of people and things by the standards that are sure and concrete….NOT emotion, NOT opinion, …..just that what ever doctrine or thing I needed to know IF IT WAS TRUE….that it fell into a compound of a principle, followed eternal law, LED me more closely TO CHRIST, gave me answers to real life, gave me PEACE and lifted me. I ALWAYS had to exhibit faith, but most ‘mysteries” soon became clear, made-sense, understandings and answers that ALL FIT into a ‘whole’ of how to worship God, get closer to him every day, know more and more about Christ, have a much closer, clearer companionship with the Holy Ghost…..on and on and on……about EVERY single thing in the gospel vehicle / the temple / Joseph Smith, covenants / veritably EVERY thing in the Church itself.
I had to WORK at it.
I had to sacrifice time…thousands of hours of study, reading, searching, contemplation, pondering…ASKING
God questions.
Doing MY part…then waiting upon the Lord.
He ALWAYS was there for me….Always answered or displayed help.
It’s been over 40 years journey of progress, weaknesses, overcoming weaknesses, repentance, mistakes, incredible miracles of every kind (HUNDREDS), tender mercy from the Lord, heartache, suffering, all kinds of opposition and trials, but it always was the COMBINATION of the physical, mental, spiritual and emotional parts of my being that had to come to KNOW……as a blend that makes up my knowing is is indeed completely TRUE.
That does not mean that people are not people.
Human beings that mess up and are BAD examples.
Wrong opinions or mis-spoken ideas from stupidity, or lack of understanding, even evil intent at times.
It just means the DOCTRINE, and ORGANIZATION are true vehicles to show us the fastest, most efficient path in worshipping a true God…Godhead…and how to progress from a carnal being into a divine being…eventually…having all the ‘keys’ of knowledge revealed. I bear witness in his name.
YES, it’s WORK.
YES, it’s WORTH IT.
YES, it’s TRUE.
YES, I AM full of joy, peace and love for ALL mankind.
YES, I really really really KNOW God lives, Jesus is the Christ and that the Holy Ghost is the BEST gift and power that we could have in mortality.
Ad Infinitum.
Love to All

Such a refreshing post! usually testimonies have been more about stories which conveyed are about the ‘curtains’ in our house of faith. Whenever such stories appear they turn me off completely, but I applaud this effort to bring pure and simple testimony. There’s not much to add, although we could digress on to what ‘fattens’ our testimony, but it would detract from the simplicity of this text and would be shoving ‘theological twinkies’ (Elder Holland dixit).

The pro forma testimony is largely thanks to BRM, who pushed the idea of the trinitarian testimony you first identify. I love the idea of being more specific about things, and also illustrating with story.

When I was in Primary, for one of the Sharing Times, the suggested activity was to teach the children that they can bear their testimony with one hand. Hold up their hands and count with their fingers that they believe in

I’ve found that it’s a pretty effective way to teach them what a testimony should include (as opposed to what happened to you over the weekend). Your OP reminded me of that list. I think that we are taught what a testimony of the gospel includes from a very young age. At what point do we internalize and understand in the ways you have pointed out?

You’re speaking more specifically, but you’ve also managed to “umbrella” a few things in a way that’s always been difficult for me.

For example, (relating to #3) my witness of the Book of Mormon has always been much stronger than my individual witness of modern prophets. Therefore, I’ve had to allow the Book of Mormon to lead me to Joseph Smith – who likewise leads me to Thomas Monson. In addition, my witness of the Bible precedes witness of the Book of Mormon which preceded my witness of the D&C. I can accept them all as scripture, but they’re all true for me in different ways.

I like this, Ronan. In particular your #3 describes my feelings about the ‘truthfulness’ of the church.

I try to be circumspect in what I say I know. What I know spiritually speaking is based on feelings; that is inspiration that is not easily interpreted. For example, if I pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true and I feel that I have a spiritual witness confirm that it is, what can I say? Not much more than God has told me the book is true. But what does true mean? Does it mean that the history in the book occurred exactly as described? Does it tell me how Joseph translated the plates? Does it rule out the possibility that the book contains many of Joseph’s own thoughts or interpretations? Revelation with regard to one specific question does not imply all my thoughts on the subject are accurate.

3,6 above – I’m not sure where to gauge what McConkie pushed other than his speaking. And he spoke often of Jesus Christ, Salvation, Exaltation, Joint-heirs, God the Father, etc. I don’t get why people would want to heap the seemingly trite-saying and simplicities which many of our testimonies get reduced to upon BRM. He spoke and testified at great length over the years about our relationship to God, what we should become, how we should become it, and what the role of prophets and the church are relative to the whole plan of Salvation.

When I mentioned BRM being responsible for the pro forma nature of contemporary testimony bearing, I had this sort of thing in mind:

“Three great truths must be included in every valid testimony: 1. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world (D. & C. 46:13); 2. That Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God through whom the gospel was restored in this dispensation; and 3. That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the ‘only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.’ (D. & C. 1:30)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 785–86).

I remember when this was really stressed, back in the 70s. People changed their former testimony practice to accommodate this style of listed recitation. I know because I did the same myself. It was all the rage back then, and this influence has continued to govern testimony bearing in the contemporary church.

In some respects this was a good thing; I think it was a reaction against the testimony as thankimony or traveloguemony that was so common back then, when people would tell sort of aimless stories about their lives without actually testifying to anything in particular. But many people have taken the basic idea too far; they simply recite precepts like this without supporting them with personal, lived experience. To me that kind of rote recitation does not a powerful testimony make. If you really believe these things, I want to know how they have transformed your life.

Kevin, not to detract from the excellent post but it is interesting that I had linked this formula with J. Reuben Clark’s ‘A Charted Course to the Church in Education’, though admittedly, I think McConkie’s is a more explicit reference.

Ronan, I think it is good to re-visit the components of our faith and your post has helped me do that today. Great thoughts.

“Thus, Fannie Alger, pre-Columbine horses, Hoffman forgeries, or the status of other religions in God’s eyes become less important than the fact that the church, particularly the temple, binds me to Christ, who binds me to God (see #2).”

Ronan, I think that last line is a great way to put it, and I agree. Thus, the truly important questions are your #1 and #2. Thus, if someone can agree with your 1 and 2, your 3 should be approachable as well.

Where Alger, horses, Hoffman, etc. come into play is that they create the space in which to seriously examine questions 1 and 2, and ultimately take true ownership of your testimony regardless of its new shape.

I didn’t really understand what a testimony was or how to appropriately share one until I was learning how to be a missionary in the MTC. I followed the thankimony and traveloguemony pattern I had witnessed in my ward while growing up. It was eye-opening to me once I learned the correct way.

Very effective article, it reminded me of that awakening I experienced years ago in Provo. I would like to say “Amen!”

Clay–not sure I understood this: “Where Alger, horses, Hoffman, etc. come into play is that they create the space in which to seriously examine questions 1 and 2, and ultimately take true ownership of your testimony regardless of its new shape.”

Do you mean that Fannie leads to questions about God’s benevolence/ the status of other religions in God’s eyes (esp non-Christian ones) leads to questions about God’s benevolence/Christs role? And that answers to those questions leads to “true ownership”?

#16
That list was photocopied to a full-page sheet and taped to the podium for every Sacrament meeting in the MTC. If you were called upon to stand and bear your testimony, you had the notes right there to remind you that if this wasn’t the way it came out, you were doing it wrong.

a testimony is a heartfelt expression of one’s faith and belief. i share the sentiments of those who wish the public testimonies were more to the point, and less story/travel/parable in nature, however ones personal faith and the way in which it is publically shared should be respected. i like to talk about the standard of a testimony, but that should never be interpreted to mean that someone sharing a travelomony is somehow less faithful. there are way too many measures in our church culture which are used to cast judgement on others, and the words and topics shared as a testimony need not be added to the list. as the standards are more widely adopted, others will follow along, but we need not chase off the outliers in some effort to be more righteouss due to our died-in-the-wool-true-blue BRM version. Just my 2 cents.

Excellent, thanks! One of the things I sincerely enjoy about testimony meeting in ordinary, month to month meetinghouse settings is just how different they all really are. I like hearing those that some would consider “different” or “non-textbook.” I enjoy when that ‘visitor’ gets up and shares something from their heart, albeit not within the 4 Pillars. I get the whole shorthand of the 4 points, and being more accurate and calculated in expression, and capturing the doctrinal foundations of an individual’s testimony. But there is also something cultural that I like about the randomness of what each person feels from their heart and the way it is expressed into different words or examples. From the very old lady that gets up each month and sobs out a few “thank you” and a heartfelt visit she had from her neighbor, to the primary kid who’s first time it is to speak “off script” to such a large audience and say they “love Jesus,” to the textbook 4 Pillars “get in get out” testimonies, I love the experience of them all and the spiritual matrix it sometimes presents. It’s a refelection not just of how people feel in the chapel, but it often reflects the greater human experience of feeling something. Testimony meeting is something I sincerely love about the LDS Church and it’s culture.

Chris (13), I think what people are referring to is the definition of a testimony BRM gave in his entry under that word in Mormon Doctrine:

Three great truths must be included in every valid testimony: 1. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world (D. & C. 46:13); 2. That Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God through whom the gospel was restored in this dispensation; and 3. That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”

He wasn’t the first to reduce a testimony to those elements, and he certainly included other elements in his own speaking and writing, but the modern habit of the Big Three formulation can certainly be laid at his feet, legitimately. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Do I believe that all of the “saving ordinances” are necessary? Not in the slightest. Do I think Mormon is the “one true religion? Absolutely not. Do I think God is made of flesh and blood? No way. Hence, I am not much of a testimony giver. I would never say “I know that…”; instead I would say “I am willing to accept that…”

Kevin (and Ardis), that is one interesting BRM quote, and by interesting I mean it irks me. I do appreciate a heartfelt testimony with personal experience. I don’t appreciate one that is just a rote recitation of MoDoc’s 4 pillars, and too many folks resort to that instead.

I’ve been doing some paintings of the Sacred Grove. I wanted to do these paintings because I dislike the ones that look nothing like the actual grove, even though the paintings are well done and beautiful – to me they contradict my personal experience of being in the grove, and they make me wonder if the painter has actually ever been there or is just painting a conceptual or symbolic forest. To me, the grove represents personal seeking rewarded by freshness, clarity, a new beginning. And that’s, to me, what my spiritual life is like. It’s not iconic or symbolic so much as personal and illuminating.

Testimonies of the “4 pillars” variety strike me the same way those other paintings of the grove do (where the trees are disproportionately large or the light is unnaturally streaming to a specific place). I wonder if the testimony bearer has ever actually been there (really has a personal experience) or if s/he’s just doing something generic, broad and grand instead of what’s personally meaningful and elevating.

Excellent stuff Ronan. And excellent thoughts Hawkgrrrl. I confess that I’m often irked by (what seems to be) rote recitation of testimony, particularly since it seems like only that kind of testifying is recognized as such.

I taught a lesson a while ago, and someone said, “I noticed you didn’t testify at the end.” I thought, “I was testifying the whole time, but it doesn’t count or you can’t recognize it without those phrases?”

That is SO true. That’s exactly what people say when they bear their testimonies in church meetings! And I’m always sitting there thinking, “Okay…care to elaborate?”
They do seem to be automated on some level, and I guess that’s because each person has only so long, but…really…shake it up will ya? Throw in some detail, a few adjectives, maybe some humor…considering if most people in the ward pretty much believe all the same 3 things. Yes, the church is true, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, listen to the Holy Spirit, and God lives, I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. We KNOW this already…it’s something akin to saying the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes…you say it so many times on command. Where’s the uniqueness of the testimony?
It becomes a little redundant after a while; that’s not to say that it’s less profound or important, but…yeah, tell me how did you come to bear testimony of the truthfulness of the Church? What element of it leads you to believe that God lives? What situation has built your testimony of Jesus as the Christ?
Great post…gives me a lot to think about as I build my own testimony about the Church.
BTW, thanks for the welcome to BCC comments!

In a former ward, our Bishop stressed constantly to keep testimonies focused on Christ and Gospel principles and not to monopolize the time – but he didn’t try to restrict the form that focus took, and he didn’t insist on using “I know” in any way. It wasn’t rote – since it took whatever form resonated with the speakers, but it simply was amazing to sit in the congregation and just observe and feel when the membership started to get and internalize what he meant.

The spirit of our testimony meetings didn’t change overnight, but by the time he was released there was a literal, almost tangible spirit in those meetings that was awe-inspiring. We had member visitors and investigators regularly comment on it.

Thanks for your post Ronan. I think you’ve given a great illustration that reflecting on the meaning of the short-hand Mormon idiom and “unpacking” these phrases helps us to work out our experiences and also goes a long way in conveying meaning to others.

While serving as a bishop some years ago, I appreciated the changes to the temple recommend questions. I always enjoyed those interviews, and tried to help the members understand the importance of the “testimony” questions and the “obedience” questions. I felt that the first four questions were an inspired statement on what a testimony should include.
1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
Note that there is a difference between Faith in the members of the Godhead and a Testimony of them. Meditate on that for a while and both your faith and your testimony will grow.
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
Not only a knowledge that He exists, but also the role He plays in your personal salvation. As was said in “Believing Christ”, we must believe IN Christ and Believe Christ that He can and will do all He said he would do – for me personally.
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
Notice you are not asked if you know the Church is true! The Restoration of the Gospel includes so many truths, such as the First Vision, the Prophet Joseph, The Book of Mormon, The Restoration of the Priesthood, Revelation, Temples, etc. Ask yourself, do I have any doubts about the Restoration of the Gospel. If you don’t, well, you may not be thinking about the question very deeply. If you do, good for you. That just means you’re trying to build and strengthen your testimony. Be sure to direct the questions to the right person, and seek answers through prayer and study.
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
This question implies so much! For this to be true, Joseph had to be a prophet, and each of his successors had to be as well. It implies the need for Priesthood power and authority on the earth, and that the Church is the one place where all priesthood authority resides in full force and in which God is fully pleased.
While I love the thoughts in the original post, I encourage us all to fully contemplate the full meaning of the temple recommend “testimony” questions and then share those thoughts and feelings here, and in your next Fast and Testimony Meeting.
Thanks for letting me ramble for a few minutes.

…the Restoration (symbols of which include the Prophet, the Book of Mormon, and the continuing keys of presidency) offers the means to change lives, through Christ. Thus, Fannie Alger, pre-Columbine horses, Hoffman forgeries, or the status of other religions in God’s eyes become less important than the fact that the church, particularly the temple, binds me to Christ, who binds me to God
.
I’m struck by the completeness and succinctness of your summary*. My soul was healed through Christ by the means this Church offers and since then, I likewise am not much concerned about the intellectual dueling swirling around it. The change of nature I reeceived, what I became is my great witness along with the continuing uplift of the Holy Ghost.
.A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. – Ezk 36:26-27
.I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell – 2 Nephi 33:6
.
– – – – –
.
* Your observation strikes me with the same compact completeness as does this summary of the steps in soul healing:And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect elove, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God. – Mni 8:26

Kulturblog

Time to update Susan’s post from August of 07. “They say that these are not the best of times, But they’re the only times I’ve ever known. And I believe there is a time for meditation In cathedrals of our own.” -Billy Joel, Summer Highland Falls

NOTE: This is an essay I wrote as an undergraduate at the University of Utah almost thirty years ago. I am republishing it here as a remembrance of my favorite professor, Mark Strand, upon the occasion of his passing. Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live… […]